The Supreme Court gets one right for a change
In the case of Burwell, Secretary of Health And Human Services, Et Al.,. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Et Al., the United States Supreme Court did nothing more or less than find that the First Amendment is constitutional.
The logic is simply that the owners of companies have the right to freedom of religion. Red herrings about whether "corporations are people" are beside the point; they are owned by people. Similarly, the argument that hormone replacement therapy needed for legitimate medical reasons other than birth control will be denied people is also a read herring; such use of these drugs does not fall under the reasoning of the Court's decision. Hobby Lobby has made it clear that its problem is not with birth control, but rather with four specific birth control drugs- all of which are abortifacients!
The Obama administration's war on religion and the individual conscience has suffered a setback which all believers in the Bill of Rights, whether religious or not, ought to celebrate. We have good reason to continue to fear decisions by the Court in future years on marriage deconstruction and other issues; the bad reasoning of past court decisions do not fill one with confidence.
But yesterday's ruling indicates that perhaps the time for despair has not yet come, either.
The logic is simply that the owners of companies have the right to freedom of religion. Red herrings about whether "corporations are people" are beside the point; they are owned by people. Similarly, the argument that hormone replacement therapy needed for legitimate medical reasons other than birth control will be denied people is also a read herring; such use of these drugs does not fall under the reasoning of the Court's decision. Hobby Lobby has made it clear that its problem is not with birth control, but rather with four specific birth control drugs- all of which are abortifacients!
The Obama administration's war on religion and the individual conscience has suffered a setback which all believers in the Bill of Rights, whether religious or not, ought to celebrate. We have good reason to continue to fear decisions by the Court in future years on marriage deconstruction and other issues; the bad reasoning of past court decisions do not fill one with confidence.
But yesterday's ruling indicates that perhaps the time for despair has not yet come, either.
Comments